"Even after the Super Bowl victory of the New Orleans Saints, I have noticed a large number of people implying with bad jokes that Cajuns aren't smart. I would like to state for the record that I disagree with that assessment. Anybody that would build a city 5 feet below sea level in a hurricane zone and fill it with Democrats is a genius".
Larry the Cable Guy

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

RON PAUL - BUH BYE!

By any objective measure, Ron Paul "jumped the shark" during the debate last night. He is a completely unredeemable moonbat and seems to be PROUD of it.

In addition, John McCain looked worn out and old and seemed to just ride the same old hobby horses. If John McCain does for national defense or border security what he has done for campaign finance reform, in the immortal words of Tony Soprano "fuhgedaboutit"! The ship has sailed on your presidential ambitions, Senator McCain. Your service to our nation has been immense and we are grateful. But enough already! You are no longer a viable candidate.

I am a Roman Catholic and thus, without apologies, completely anti-abortion. That being said, I find myself thinking that (assuming a more attractive alternative doesn't present itself - Fred Thompson, for example), for reasons of national defense and security, Republicans might need to bite the bullet and go with someone who is not their perfect dream of conservatism.

Here's the deal all you conservatives out there. I'm slightly to the right of Attila the Hun and, in a perfect world, Rudy or Mitt are not my dream candidates. On the other hand, is Duncan Hunter electable? Is Tom Tancredo? So electability is the key here and I'm not willing to bite off my nation's safety to spite my face. We are already seeing how well that worked out in the 2006 election, aren't we!

5 comments:

I began to watch the debate, but ended up doing something with my daughter, and didn't get to see much beyond the first few minutes. However, from all I've heard about it, Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson were the biggest jokes of the night. (Doesn't Thompson remind you of Gollum?)

For Paul to think that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our prior involvement in the Middle East shows just how much he knows about it -- zippo. And I agree: while we would have our perfect candidate in a perfect world, a perfect world it ain't. Abortion bothers me, but if we are all blown up, my stance on that won't matter one whit. Safety first. We can worry about the rest of it later.

I too want Thompson to enter the race. Until then, my first choice is Rudy, and my second choice is Mitt.

The Ron Paul mindset helped empower a great deal of the delusion prior to the 2006 election. I wonder if they are happy with the Pelosi Congress? Spending more? Wanting to tax more? More needless regulations? Meaningless Congressional testimony from Ms. Plame?

On a number of message boards from 2000 to 2006, I encountered many who feel they are Libertarian, who were actually trying to undermine support for the GOP. Many of these Libertarians believed the backwards agenda of Paul - Buchanan, was more in touch with the convictions of President Reagan. Of course, this is absurd, as the Gipper would not reject Isolationist nonsense. President Reagan correctly believed the US must lead in the World, and wisely led the fight to combat the Soviet Union.

But in reality, a number of these Libertarians were actually Liberal Democrats unethically pretending, hoping to weaken support for true Conservative interests. I note hearing very little about 'spending' now, even as Democrats have increased pork in massive form. A number of these fake Libertarians, true Liberals, actually bragged about having manipulated the Ron Paul - Buchanan mentalities later. (Some were actually true Libertarians, but lean on the left hand side, hoping to legalize certain forms of banned substances).

I see Lou Dobbs as a perfect example of this 'poser' game, in the form of a MSM pundit.

Regardless, to empower the Democrats is never the answer. If someone desires certain policy changes, it is best to work constructively inside the GOP as the Gipper once did.

Mr. Paul offers vapid policy. It is concerning to grasp, someone could have such an ignorant view of the World. Blind isolationism is a disaster, and displays little understanding for the Free Market and the power of the Global Economy. The amazing quality of Life the American Public enjoys, the many opportunities, would disappear if we just closed the doors and stuck our heads in the sand.

About the other candidates...

I feel Romney and Rudy are far more Conservative than many recognize. Both are fine candidates.

I agree with you regarding Senator McCain.

McCain looks old, tired, uncertain, and cannot explain a number of his liberal policy advancements.

His contention, 'campaign finance reform' was merely an act of bipartisanship, should make any Conservative concerned about a McCain Presidency.

Senator please, bad policy should NEVER be encouraged in exchange for bipartisanship.

This is a US Veteran, (a true Hero) who 'mishandled' his plane, in the face of enemy fire many years ago.

Of all the people in the USA, who should understand the difficulty of an admirable Military Operation like the one in Iraq, it should be John McCain.

He voted for this Mission. His demeaning those who bravely implemented HIS chosen policy is ugly.

When Senator McCain says 'mishandled' he joins the likes of Senator Reid.

Why?

To appease the Liberal Media and some Democrat Partisans?

Yet, besides tossing the Bush Administration under the bus, he also demeans thousands of Americans who served bravely in Iraq.

John McCain really should know better. Leadership is not this Senator...

In regards to the conception of being the 'ULTRA-PERFECT-CONSERVATIVE'?

How could it exist in a human being? A major concept of Conservatism, wants to limit government, knowing the fallibility of human beings.

Even President Reagan enabled Social Security with Democrat Tip P. O’Neill.

Back in 2000, a clear moderate conservative named GW Bush from Texas, was a fine choice to rebuke the Clinton - Gore negligence. He was known to be quite ethical, and to try to work with all. He turned out to be better than I personally imagined after 9-11. A strong, honest, reasoned President, who led Our Nation beyond one of the most painful attacks on American Soil. They slandered and demeaned him, but he remains, leading this fine Country.

Some conservatives began to believe President Bush was something other than he actually is, and then became disillusioned. It was sad to watch. While they blamed the Man for everything and anything. As the Man tried to reform Social Security, bringing private investment to the socialist waste, many screamed about smaller fish, including 'pork spending'. As if they forgot about all the massive spending President Reagan allowed in exchange for support in the Cold War.

Deeply thankful for President Bush, who kept Gore - Kerry at bay.

Regardless, I mean to say, the situation often makes a real Candidate. As Mitt Romney demonstrates with impressive ability, to express his fine character. Or, as Rudy Giuliani stood up to challenge the pathetic nature of Ron Paul.

The real solid Republican Nominee will grow with the experience on the National Stage in many ways to become the right fit.

Fred Thompson is not there. This is a Man I like, but he also joined McCain's Campaign run in 2000, which opposed tax cuts?

Newt is also nowhere to be seen...

It says a lot.

When we played sports, we had to go with the talent we had, and were proud to do so.

Do you really think Paul stand for complete isolationism or just throttling back a little bit? He seems to make sense in following the constitution and opposing pre-emptive war...why don't you like him?